Section 42 NDPS compliance must be in writing and promptly reported; oral evidence cannot cure total omission.

Total non-compliance with the NDPS Act requirement to record information in writing and forthwith send it to the superior officer is impermissible and may vitiate the prosecution; delayed compliance may be accepted only with a satisfactory explanation. Whether Section 42 compliance is sufficient depends on the facts of each case. Here, no information was reduced to writing and no copy was sent to the immediate superior officer, so oral evidence could not cure the omission because there was time to comply with the statutory requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in recording and forwarding information to the superior officer, vitiated the prosecution case.

Analysis: The applicable legal position is that total non-compliance with Section 42(2) is impermissible and may adversely affect the prosecution. However, delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation may be accepted, and the sufficiency of compliance under Section 42 is to be determined on the facts of each case. In the present case, the record showed that no information was taken down in writing and no copy was sent to the immediate superior officer. The Court held that oral evidence could not cure this omission, particularly where there was sufficient time to comply with the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The non-compliance with Section 42(2) was not saved by oral evidence and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, total non-compliance with the requirement to record information in writing and send it forthwith to the superior officer is impermissible, while delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation may suffice; adequacy of compliance is a question of fact in each case.

---